What's new

Is Kashmir key to Afghan peace?

Indeed, when India accused the ISI of plotting the embassy attack, nothing less than the word of USA was considered adequate proof. When the USA did accuse the ISI, it was considered a conspiracy!

Pakistan on the other hand hasn't got much more than the word of its own intelligence agencies (which has next to zero credibility) regarding the alleged involvement of the Indians in Balochistan and funding the Pakistani Taliban or other extremists.

Most western media articles consider it as Pakistan's own paranoia that they keep accusing India of meddling in their country.

My opinion is that some elements in Pakistan are trying to create international pressure to evict Indians from Afghanistan for obvious reasons, and these accusations are simply manufactured to achieve that end.

Indian PM Manmohan Singh has made it quite clear that India desires a peaceful and stable Pakistan, which is much more preferable to the alternative of an unstable country on the verge of fragmentation and/or in the hands of extremists.
I hardly think that Indian policymakers would try to put their own country at risk by trying to destabilize the "buffer" between Panipat and Kabul.

On the other hand, Pakistan would benefit immensely from an unstable and weak India, so that they can freely gain access to the Kashmir valley and thus achieve a "whole" Pakistan.
They have little to gain from a stable India, which will overshadow them both in the region and in the world militarily and economically.
 
Sounds like a serious movement of goalposts here.

You will remember that when the discussion first started on this issue. you took the position that ISI is not culprit because the USA did not accuse them.

That happened and the goalposts changed!
That happened because the relationship between Pakistan and the US deteriorated. And we still have no official word accusation from the US, just 'anonymous sources'. And these same 'anonymous sources' then accused Gen. Kiyani of being the 'mastermind', while he was being felicitated by all and sundry in the US and NATO military and political establishments. Had the propaganda campaign stopped with the ISI, it would have been credible. That they chose to include Gen. Kiyani in it, exposed it for what it was.

We now find out that that particular period was also one in which the tussle between Defense and State played out, and Defense won out in terms of implementing a more aggressive policy towards FATA, and we saw that ill advised SF raid that generated so much negativity we haven't seen another one since.

And right before the accusation against Gen. Kiyani, he had, unusually for him, come out strongly to condemn the US SF raid, an the ISPR had stated that it would 'open fire' on any future unauthorized infiltrations. Coincidence? I don't think so. This was a well planned and orchestrated propaganda campaign to pressure Pakistan. Thankfully, as far as ground raids are concerned at least, it backfired on the US.

The question wasn't of 'changing goal posts', it was one of shifting US-Pak dynamics, that moved the US from a relatively 'neutral' entity in Afghanistan, to one that had a vested interest in maligning Pakistan.

These things may remain unsubstantiated if we keep looking for the smoking guns. But I guess most people are aware of the reasoning behind certain happenings.

I agree we started on a false note and went downhill after that. But that does not mean that there was only the Kashmir issue keeping us apart.

But I don't think either of us can really "prove" this point. It is subjective and it is not easy to convince the other if he has his own opinions and strong ones at that.

The smoking guns exist in the form of Manekshaw's comments as far as East Pakistan is concerned, and the details in Raina's book. But the fact remains that the hostility between the two nations started with Kashmir, and has poisoned the relationship since. The unresolved dispute of Kashmir remains the 'disease'
 
Indeed, when India accused the ISI of plotting the embassy attack, nothing less than the word of USA was considered adequate proof. When the USA did accuse the ISI, it was considered a conspiracy!

Pakistan on the other hand hasn't got much more than the word of its own intelligence agencies (which has next to zero credibility) regarding the alleged involvement of the Indians in Balochistan and funding the Pakistani Taliban or other extremists.

Most western media articles consider it as Pakistan's own paranoia that they keep accusing India of meddling in their country.

My opinion is that some elements in Pakistan are trying to create international pressure to evict Indians from Afghanistan for obvious reasons, and these accusations are simply manufactured to achieve that end.

Indian PM Manmohan Singh has made it quite clear that India desires a peaceful and stable Pakistan, which is much more preferable to the alternative of an unstable country on the verge of fragmentation and/or in the hands of extremists.
I hardly think that Indian policymakers would try to put their own country at risk by trying to destabilize the "buffer" between Panipat and Kabul.

On the other hand, Pakistan would benefit immensely from an unstable and weak India, so that they can freely gain access to the Kashmir valley and thus achieve a "whole" Pakistan.
They have little to gain from a stable India, which will overshadow them both in the region and in the world militarily and economically.

For the first part refer to my response to Vinod above.

I fail to see given the vested interests of India and Afghanistan, why their 'intelligence' shoudl be given any more credibility than Pakistan's? Most opinion about Pakistan is based on Indian accusations and Indian intelligence, not any neutral 'fact finding exercise'.

Picking out selective articles and opinions to make the 'paranoid' argument doesn't validate anything. There are others that argue the opposite.

In fact, that so many analysts in the West are now arguing that there is a need for India's actions in Afghanistan to be made more 'transparent' and advocating a regional and more comprehensive approach to Afghanistan indicates that Pakistan's concerns are genuine, and starting to be recognized as such.

And unless 'some elements' in Pakistan are publishing articles under the names of Obama's advisor's or other well known Western commentators, I do not see how this is a campaign by Pakistanis.

Your argument of what 'India would gain from an unstable Pakistan' is ridiculous, since India did just that starting in 1968. We have history to invalidate your argument. And as pointed out elsewhere, there are many in the Indian intelligentsia who advocate for a weak and unstable Pakistan to ensure that it does not threaten India. In fact, Vinod and Vish's own insistence that the hostility between India and Pakistan is 'more than Kashmir' alludes to that very point.

They imply that Pakistan's hostility with India will not cease with Kashmir, that there is some 'darker' purpose. And this very idea feeds the above mentioned section of Indian intelligentsia - they cling to this fantastic conspiracy theory, and that is their justification for keeping Pakistan unstable.
 
For the first part refer to my response to Vinod above.

You are still evading the elephant in the room - why the backtracking on the earlier assertion that the world of USA would be considered as ample proof?

I fail to see given the vested interests of India and Afghanistan, why their 'intelligence' shoudl be given any more credibility than Pakistan's? Most opinion about Pakistan is based on Indian accusations and Indian intelligence, not any neutral 'fact finding exercise'.

Well, that's not my point at all. My point is that Pakistan's intelligence agencies are simply manufacturing accusations in order to create pressure for India to stop messing around in its backyard, so to speak.
Since no 3rd party has validated any of Pakistan's accusations against India, they carry no weight.

In any case, enough research papers have been published on the schizophrenic personality of the Pakistani establishment in the recent past.

Picking out selective articles and opinions to make the 'paranoid' argument doesn't validate anything. There are others that argue the opposite.

Well, barring the odd opinion piece here and there, most of what I've read refers to the accusations as either "paranoia" or "knee-jerk reaction", or some other similar term.
I do think the numbers are not in your favour at all.

Though I wouldn't be surprised if you'd give more weightage to a solitary piece swimming against the tide than the tide itself.

In fact, that so many analysts in the West are now arguing that there is a need for India's actions in Afghanistan to be made more 'transparent' and advocating a regional and more comprehensive approach to Afghanistan indicates that Pakistan's concerns are genuine, and starting to be recognized as such.

Sure, why not, we'd be happy to be more "transparent" and cooperate better with both Pakistan and America, provided accusations and bombs aren't being hurled at us all the time!

However, I fail to hear any voices accusing India of foul play in that region other than those from Pakistan.

And unless 'some elements' in Pakistan are publishing articles under the names of Obama's advisor's or other well known Western commentators, I do not see how this is a campaign by Pakistanis.

Really? Which Obama advisor accused India of supporting terrorism recently?


Your argument of what 'India would gain from an unstable Pakistan' is ridiculous, since India did just that starting in 1968. We have history to invalidate your argument. And as pointed out elsewhere, there are many in the Indian intelligentsia who advocate for a weak and unstable Pakistan to ensure that it does not threaten India. In fact, Vinod and Vish's own insistence that the hostility between India and Pakistan is 'more than Kashmir' alludes to that very point.

So you'll take the word of Vinod and Vishnu above that of the Prime Minister, the Home Minister, the Foreign Minister, the Security Chief, and the Chiefs of the Army, Navy and Airforce, not to mention most of the mainstream media and the newspapers?
 
You are still evading the elephant in the room - why the backtracking on the earlier assertion that the world of USA would be considered as ample proof?

You are not reading. I gave my response to that question in my post directed at Vinod.


Well, that's not my point at all. My point is that Pakistan's intelligence agencies are simply manufacturing accusations in order to create pressure for India to stop messing around in its backyard, so to speak.
Since no 3rd party has validated any of Pakistan's accusations against India, they carry no weight.

In any case, enough research papers have been published on the schizophrenic personality of the Pakistani establishment in the recent past.
That is the point, why shouldn't Pakistani intelligence be considered credible?

Well, barring the odd opinion piece here and there, most of what I've read refers to the accusations as either "paranoia" or "knee-jerk reaction", or some other similar term.
I do think the numbers are not in your favour at all.

Though I wouldn't be surprised if you'd give more weightage to a solitary piece swimming against the tide than the tide itself.
Unless you want to get into a 'article counting' exercise, this is an absurd argument. There are plenty of opinions and articles that do give credence to Pakistan's opinion. You obviously choose to focus on the ones that fit your view, and then call it 'the tide' - doesn't make it the tide.

Sure, why not, we'd be happy to be more "transparent" and cooperate better with both Pakistan and America, provided accusations and bombs aren't being hurled at us all the time!

However, I fail to hear any voices accusing India of foul play in that region other than those from Pakistan.
The you haven't been reading opinions by respected Western analysts such as B rubin, Bruce Riedel (Obama's Pakistan advisor), Stephen Cohen etc..

Again, you are only interested in focusing on analysis that supports you bias - that is fine, but don't try and paint it as the 'tide'.

Really? Which Obama advisor accused India of supporting terrorism recently?
What does that have to do with my post? More obfuscation from you and a distraction from the subject? Read your original comment I responded to in the last post and then my reply.

So you'll take the word of Vinod and Vishnu above that of the Prime Minister, the Home Minister, the Foreign Minister, the Security Chief, and the Chiefs of the Army, Navy and Airforce, not to mention most of the mainstream media and the newspapers?
No, I am merely holding them up as an example of the kind of mindset I referred to in the Indian intelligentsia, that includes retired military and intelligence people, politicians, and analysts.

On that count, Zardari is the face of our government as well, and based on his comments India has nothing to fear from Pakistan.
 
You are not reading. I gave my response to that question in my post directed at Vinod.

Thank you, and I did read it. You can come up with a dozen reasons as to why you cannot trust the word of the US - but the fact remains that it is the word of the CIA, and you choose to reject it because you cannot accept it.

The fact is that Pakistan did bomb the Indian embassy, and I clearly remember the the events that followed the accusations and the pressure exerted on the ISI to clean up its act.

That is the point, why shouldn't Pakistani intelligence be considered credible?

If you are willing to consider Indian intelligence as credible, then we can reciprocate.


Unless you want to get into a 'article counting' exercise, this is an absurd argument. There are plenty of opinions and articles that do give credence to Pakistan's opinion. You obviously choose to focus on the ones that fit your view, and then call it 'the tide' - doesn't make it the tide.

There are no articles that support Pakistan's accusations against India of sponsoring terrorism in Pakistan. Name one. Go ahead.

The you haven't been reading opinions by respected Western analysts such as B rubin, Bruce Riedel (Obama's Pakistan advisor), Stephen Cohen etc..

Really? And they claim that they have evidence of India sponsoring terrorism in Pakistan?
Please point out one such article to me.

Again, you are only interested in focusing on analysis that supports you bias - that is fine, but don't try and paint it as the 'tide'.

It is, it has been for quite some time now, and as I said, its not surprising that you are giving far too much weightage to a few opinions.

What does that have to do with my post? More obfuscation from you and a distraction from the subject? Read your original comment I responded to in the last post and then my reply.

Sorry? I am simply asking you to point out which of Obama's advisors accused India of terrorism, as you seem to be suggesting.

No, I am merely holding them up as an example of the kind of mindset I referred to in the Indian intelligentsia, that includes retired military and intelligence people, politicians, and analysts.

Well you are clearly erring by giving more weightage to the opinions of a few "retired military intelligence people" than the Indian government itself.


On that count, Zardari is the face of our government as well, and based on his comments India has nothing to fear from Pakistan.

Sure, except for the fact that the Army and the ISI don't give a damn about what their Prime Minister has to say.

Don't even compare please - India's policy is streamlined and disciplined - our government knows what its various arms are doing.

In Pakistan, it is common knowledge that the military and the intelligence acts of its own accord. Remember Kargil and the Mushy versus Nawaz Sharif fiasco? I can't believe how fast people forget :disagree:

Perhaps things have changed recently, but the results are yet to be seen.
 
Thank you, and I did read it. You can come up with a dozen reasons as to why you cannot trust the word of the US - but the fact remains that it is the word of the CIA, and you choose to reject it because you cannot accept it.

The fact is that Pakistan did bomb the Indian embassy, and I clearly remember the the events that followed the accusations and the pressure exerted on the ISI to clean up its act.
Sorry, but the CIA either lied or was completely wrong on WMD's in Iraq. Not a major case of 'credibility' there either. Given the tensions in that period with Pakistan, its opinion became suspect, since it was no longer a 'neutral' arbiter.

Secondly, are we still referring to the 'anonymous sources' in the NYT as being indicative of the CIA, or is there now an official position on that by the CIA?

There are no articles that support Pakistan's accusations against India of sponsoring terrorism in Pakistan. Name one. Go ahead.

Really? And they claim that they have evidence of India sponsoring terrorism in Pakistan?
Please point out one such article to me.

Sorry? I am simply asking you to point out which of Obama's advisors accused India of terrorism, as you seem to be suggesting.
This was your original comment:

"My opinion is that some elements in Pakistan are trying to create international pressure to evict Indians from Afghanistan for obvious reasons, and these accusations are simply manufactured to achieve that end."

I took that to imply that elements in Pakistan were creating the 'linkage between Kashmir and Afghanistan'. My responses were in that context, not one of terrorism.

I have mentioned some of the authors who have recently argued for more transparency in India's operations in Afghanistan. You suggested Pakistan's claims were overwhelmingly derided as 'paranoia' - I stated that many reputable figures have not done so. I did not say they accused India of terrorism. My argument with you was over the 'paranoia' comment.

It is, it has been for quite some time now, and as I said, its not surprising that you are giving far too much weightage to a few opinions.
Again, there is no point in getting into an absurd 'article counting exercise'. The opposing opinions exist, that do not dismiss Pakstan's concerns as paranoia and argue for a regional approach to the Afghan conflict.


Well you are clearly erring by giving more weightage to the opinions of a few "retired military intelligence people" than the Indian government itself.
The opinions of the current Pakistani leadership in the same vein are what count.


Sure, except for the fact that the Army and the ISI don't give a damn about what their Prime Minister has to say.

Don't even compare please - India's policy is streamlined and disciplined - our government knows what its various arms are doing.

In Pakistan, it is common knowledge that the military and the intelligence acts of its own accord. Remember Kargil and the Mushy versus Nawaz Sharif fiasco? I can't believe how fast people forget :disagree:

Perhaps things have changed recently, but the results are yet to be seen.

I will compare. Its extremely presumptuous of you to just claim that 'India is better', as you have a tendency to do (the journalists comments). Keep your arrogance to yourself please. While military and civilian rule have alternated, the fact is that the military has always obeyed the 'rulers' when conducting policy, including NS during Kargil.

Since we are contrasting MMS's comments with Zardari's - The ISI and army are operating under the PM and President currently. Gen. Kiyani has deferred to the civilian government on almost every singly issue.

Withdraw the troops from FATA and Swat to 'negotiate' - done. A reduction in the budget for the Strategic Plans Division (the center of Pakistan's WMD, delivery and other strategic programs) done. Redeploy the troops in FATA and Swat - done.

By the way, the 'political wing' of the ISI has been disbanded.

DAWN.COM | Pakistan | ISI political wing disbanded: FM Qureshi

So yes, I have every reason to believe that the Pakistan's policy is 'streamlined and disciplined'.
 
Sorry, but the CIA either lied or was completely wrong on WMD's in Iraq. Not a major case of 'credibility' there either. Given the tensions in that period with Pakistan, its opinion became suspect, since it was no longer a 'neutral' arbiter.

Well then you shouldn't have said in the first place that the CIA is a credible source.
Infact, you should start disregarding both the American press and the any press articles which quote the CIA completely, since you have no way of ascertaining for sure which ones are "lies" and which one is the truth.

Since you don't seem to have done that, it clearly shows that you are simply picking and choosing those articles which support your preexisting views.

Secondly, are we still referring to the 'anonymous sources' in the NYT as being indicative of the CIA, or is there now an official position on that by the CIA?

Well here's an article which says that Pakistani officials admitted that ISI was involved:

Pakistani officials deny publicly such a link to the suicide bombing, but privately confirm that they too think elements within the Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, were involved.


Sherry Rehman, a Pakistan government spokeswoman, said there was no proof of ISI involvement. But she said "individuals" in the ISI are "probably acting on their own and going against official policy", adding that the authorities "need to identify these people and weed them out".


The CIA's assessment was passed to the Pakistani government last month.It accused elements within the ISI of giving logistical support to the insurgents blamed for the embassy bombing and who are believed to be led by Maulavi Jalauddin Haqqani, a pro-Taliban commander.


The CIA's director of clandestine operations, Stephen Kappes, visited Pakistan last month to put before the government what he claimed was evidence of links between the ISI, the Taliban and al-Qaida


Pakistan to 'weed out' Taliban sympathisers | World news | The Guardian

This was your original comment:

"My opinion is that some elements in Pakistan are trying to create international pressure to evict Indians from Afghanistan for obvious reasons, and these accusations are simply manufactured to achieve that end."

I took that to imply that elements in Pakistan were creating the 'linkage between Kashmir and Afghanistan'. My responses were in that context, not one of terrorism.

Well I meant terrorism.

I have mentioned some of the authors who have recently argued for more transparency in India's operations in Afghanistan. You suggested Pakistan's claims were overwhelmingly derided as 'paranoia' - I stated that many reputable figures have not done so. I did not say they accused India of terrorism. My argument with you was over the 'paranoia' comment.

The claims that India was sponsoring terrorist groups in Pakistan were described as "Paranoia" and "knee-jerk reaction". That's what I meant.

Again, there is no point in getting into an absurd 'article counting exercise'. The opposing opinions exist, that do not dismiss Pakstan's concerns as paranoia and argue for a regional approach to the Afghan conflict.

They recognize Pakistan's concerns perhaps in the sense that they realize that Pakistan won't cooperate unless it is placated to some extent. They don't however back any of Pakistan's claims about Indian activities in the region.


I will compare. Its extremely presumptuous of you to just claim that 'India is better', as you have a tendency to do (the journalists comments). Keep your arrogance to yourself please. While military and civilian rule have alternated, the fact is that the military has always obeyed the 'rulers' when conducting policy, including NS during Kargil.

I'm not being arrogant, but simply honest. Its a fact that the Indian government does not have its agencies at loggerheads with each other, unlike Pakistan.

It is well known that Musharraf organized Kargil without consulting either Nawaz Sharif or any other civilian leader but kept it under wraps till the last moment.

Since we are contrasting MMS's comments with Zardari's - The ISI and army are operating under the PM and President currently. Gen. Kiyani has deferred to the civilian government on almost every singly issue.

Well, as I said, these developments are very recent and you cannot use them to prove that things were streamlined in the past.

So yes, I have every reason to believe that the Pakistan's policy is 'streamlined and disciplined'.

Lets wait and watch.
 
After more balanced coverage, what next?
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Mosharraf Zaidi

As the world's attention turns increasingly to Pakistan and its role in tackling the threat of globalised terrorism, the country's perception abroad is evolving. More than seven years after 9/11, a more nuanced approach to understanding the country is beginning to emerge among western analysts and journalists who cover Pakistan.

The New York Times is perhaps the best in a long line of examples that indicate that 61 years of misapprehensions and ignorance about Pakistan in America may be eroding. On Sunday, Jane Perlez, who is being touted by many (most recently by Steve Coll, in a blog entry for The New Yorker magazine) as a Pulitzer candidate for her coverage of Afghanistan and Pakistan, wrote an article titled, "Ringed by foes, Pakistanis fear the US, too." In it she explores the very real apprehensions and fears Pakistanis feel about the world's intentions for their country. She mentions the laundry list of Pakistani conspiracy theories, from American plans to redraw Pakistan's map (based on the popular email that details an American neoconservative group's fantasy for what the region should look like), to the notion that Osama bin Laden is a fabrication, created to enable US forces' presence in the region. These are not new notions. Many journalists have reported such conspiracy theories from around the Muslim world since 2001. But what is different about Perlez's story, and increasingly several others, is that they are told without the mocking or rubbishing of the sentiments that drive Pakistani fear. Instead of sticking to the habits of older, lazier and less nuanced reporting form the country, many western journalists are increasingly able to identify the roots of why Pakistanis so often seem to loathe how their country is treated by the press and governments in the Western world.

Perlez is not alone at The New York Times. Nicholas Kristof, the op-ed columnist, has had a long and abiding interest in Pakistan, from specific cases, like advocating justice for Mukhtaran Mai, to the general fascination with Pakistan's relationship with democracy. Kristof's column on Sunday (the same day as Perlez's article appeared), titled "The Pakistan Test," is far from perfect (recommending as it does, a slowing down of aid to Pakistan, instead of a speeding up). But it does contain a scathing rebuke of the decision to appoint Messrs Zehri and Bijarani as ministers in the current cabinet. For years now many Pakistanis have been left dumbfounded by western journalists and the fascination they've had for feudal politicians whose values do not reflect even a tiny sliver of the principals that define western civilisation. One article will not repair decades of western journalists' being easily charmed by feudal swank and rustic bling, but it portends a deeper current of change.

Robert Novak's generation of commentators were tone deaf, and Internet-less, which would explain their irrational exuberance for feudals. Kristof represents a fundamentally different generation of columnists, a more plugged-in generation that can easily tap beyond the small network of Pakistanis that have always dominated access to such journalists. With thousands of blogs, a new entrepreneurial class emerging out of the opportunities afforded by technology and the slow but steady globalisation of Pakistani activism, there is no excuse for Americans not to know about the kinds of characters that inhabit Pakistan's cabinet. Kristof is wrong when he advocates a slowing down of aid to Pakistan, but he's spot on when he exposes a major cabinet misstep that has created a surge of discontent in Pakistani cities and across Pakistani cyberspace, to which the PPP government has been predictably deaf. With The New York Times now joining the chorus, it might start to listen. Perhaps one day, the PPP's slim cadre of enlightened moderates may even introspect as to why they allow their party to even be associated with men who hate little girls, to say nothing of elevating such men to the level of ministers representing the whole nation.

Right before the February election, in perhaps one of the seminal nods to Pakistan's growing middle class, The Wall Street Journal, published a fascinating and prescient account of the old Pakistani politics. This is a newspaper, we should remember, lost one of its best reporters, Danny Pearl, to the insane bloodlust of terrorists. Following in Pearl's brave footsteps, Yaroslav Trofimov wrote an article titled, "Dynasties, not democracies, may decide Pakistan's vote," No western journalist had yet painted such an accurate picture of the contempt that feudal politicians have for Pakistan's emergent urban middle class. (Although it was ironic that this contempt was crystallised in Syeda Abida Hussain's wrathful invective against Gen Musharraf--hardly a posterchild for the middle class!)

Even in the more rarefied air of the lengthier and serious think-tank pieces, Pakistan is being understood in a much more sophisticated way than in years past. Ahmed Rashid and Barnett Rubin's widely read piece, "From Great Game to Grand Bargain" in the most recent edition of the Council on Foreign Relations' bimonthly journal Foreign Affairs is a great example. In a journal that is much more prone to hit-pieces on Pakistan by Cold War analysts like Sumit Ganguly, Rashid and Rubin, despite some flaws, deliver a powerful and compelling set of diagnoses and prescriptions for the region's deep-rooted troubles.

Not surprisingly, the common thread across the range of what we might call the post-Musharraf era of Pakistan-analysis is a genuine recognition of Pakistan's territorial and existential concerns. These don't legitimise any global vigilantism, or cross-border adventurism, as Pakistani hawks would like them to. They do however represent a long-sought-after turning of the page on the false idea that Pakistan as a state, and Pakistanis as a people, have unsubstantiated existential fears.

Perlez points out the legitimacy of grievances over Kashmir, where even indigenous, non-violent protests, such as those that took place this summer, can't seem to get any real play in Washington DC, or coverage on Fox or MSNBC. Kristof gets the most important of his recommendations right, when he states clearly that "we should push much harder for a peace deal in Kashmir -- including far more pressure on India." Rashid and Rubin place a more mature India, right at the very heart of a more stable Pakistan.

All of this matters greatly for younger Pakistanis and their understanding of the country they've inherited from Messrs Ayub, Zia and Musharraf. It is not really going to be (or at least it should not be) journalists and analysts that determine the course of domestic or foreign policy in Pakistan. Nor will articles and essays persuade India to behave more like the civilisational superpower that it is, rather than the petty regional bully that it pretends to be. Yet the rules of the game are changing as we speak. For six decades, Pakistani foreign and domestic policy has been shaped by fear and insecurity. Unlike the misguided (and ridiculous) plans to "promote Pakistan's soft image" (sic), a genuinely more balanced coverage of the country by the western press may help Pakistanis finally begin to dump some of the country's backbreaking historical and emotional baggage.

After more balanced coverage, what next?

----------------------

I'm not the only one seeing a subtle change in tenor and focus in the Western media then!
 
Agnostic, I must compliment you for your indefatigable efforts.

On Afghanistan, the basic point is this: It is unfair to say that the people of Afghanistan shall not have peace unless Pakistan gets its way on Kashmir.

As regards Pakistan's concerns on Indian activities there, they can be met by by assuring greater transparency, provided Pakistan agrees to stop using fellows like Haqqani.

In Afghanistan, the fact is that India's interests are genuinely served by doing things like giving nutritious biscuits to poor Afghan school children, constructing roads and electricity lines.

Pakistan will not get anywhere by playing the Pushtun card in Afghanistan, since the Pushtuns detest the Taliban as much as anybody else - and also detest Pakistan for supporting them. Furthermore, Pushtuns are actually quite well represented in the current Afghan cabinet. In any case, the composition of Afghanistan's government should be decided by Afghans democratically, and not through deals between external powers.

On Kashmir, there appear to be two questions: Firstly, who was responsible for the UN resolutions not being implemented - and I think any fair person will admit that Pakistan must take its share of the blame by not withdrawing its troops. See also my comment at this link. But in any case this question is now academic.

Secondly, whether the UN resolutions continue to be valid. The UN resolutions were obviously framed in view of the then existing conditions. If there has been any tampering with the demography of the Northern areas, then it creates serious problems. Also, there is no way places like Hindu Jammu and Buddhist Ladakh can ever be handed over to an Islamic country.

So, those who are not arguing for the sake of argument will agree that the UN resolutions are not the way to go today.

So then what? I think the dialogue that was begun by Musharraf and Manmohan does show some promise, provided Pakistanis can keep their expectations realistic. Some modus vivendi might be found in the "No change in borders, but make boders irrelevant" approach.

However, India will insist on a symmetry between the Valley and the Northern areas. Also, there is no point in any more interim solutions like the Simla agreement - I don't think India should make any concessions unless Pakistan agrees that the proposed status is the final status.
 
Last edited:
he only serious uprisings in India after Kashmir are in the South and in the East. The Tamils are getting their butt kicked by the SL army. I don't think they stand a chance against IA. On the Eastern side, yes they have Bangladesh to contend with.

Asim Srilankan conflict has nothing to do with Tamilnadu. It is their internal affairs. There is no such demand for seperate Tamil country from India except once from a notorious sandalwood smuggler. To sum it up your contention that there is serios uprising in South is off the tangent.
 
Are you making the case for Pakistani support for insurgencies in East India on the basis of opinions? What insight does this man have on any covert Pakistani operations? Why would he have any insight? This is just silly.

But if we were to accept that yardstick one must admit that India is, and has been, promoting the insurgency in Baluchistan and FATA as well, as many Pakistani commentators have argued, and as has been argued by intelligence and security officials in articles by many respected Pakistani writers.

What a bloody statement. Where is the bloody proof. You always rant about India not providing proof, err what stops you from providing one. No radio intercepts, no Indian markings in weapons, no eapons residue, no sat intel on training camps. Id say Hippocracy at best. You just cant accepting that it is tanking place in your backyard ...
 
Agnostic, I must compliment you for your indefatigable efforts.

On Afghanistan, the basic point is this: It is unfair to say that the people of Afghanistan shall not have peace unless Pakistan gets its way on Kashmir.

As regards Pakistan's concerns on Indian activities there, they can be met by by assuring greater transparency, provided Pakistan agrees to stop using fellows like Haqqani.

In Afghanistan, the fact is that India's interests are genuinely served by doing things like giving nutritious biscuits to poor Afghan school children, constructing roads and electricity lines.

Pakistan will not get anywhere by playing the Pushtun card in Afghanistan, since the Pushtuns detest the Taliban as much as anybody else - and also detest Pakistan for supporting them. Furthermore, Pushtuns are actually quite well represented in the current Afghan cabinet. In any case, the composition of Afghanistan's government should be decided by Afghans democratically, and not through deals between external powers.

Your initial argument on Afghanistan works both ways - Afghanistan cannot be held hostage to India's desire to weaken Pakistan through supporting an insurgency in Baluchistan or other anti-Pakistan activities either. The question is not one of Pakistan getting its way on Kashmir, the question is one of removing the reason for both India and Pakistan using Afghanistan as a proxy battleground - again, this is not just Pakistan, but India as well. I do not see how this can happen unless the underlying cause for the hostility is addressed, which is Kashmir (by the way, nothing has been said about "Pakistan getting its way on Kashmir', that is your own insertion, the phrase used by me has been 'resolution of the dispute').

So in essence, your 'basic point on Afghanistan' is a mischaracterization of the arguments made here.

As for the Pashtun card, I wouldn't really make tall claims about knowing the minds of millions of people in the manner you have - its just absurd. I am not claiming the Taliban are loved by all Pashtun, that again is a strawman introduced by you. Pakistan's concerns stemmed form NA warlords and their lackeys getting positions of power in Afghanistan. Hopefully their influence will be reduced in the next elections, we shall wait and see.

The question isn't one of creating a GoA through 'deals between external powers' (another false insertion by yourself) it is of ensuring that the GoA does not engage in activities that pose a national security threat to other nations. The West does not want Afghanistan used as a terrorist sanctuary - similarly Pakistan does not want Afghanistan used as a staging ground for separatists in Baluchistan and FATA/NWFP, by either herself or others.
On Kashmir, there appear to be two questions: Firstly, who was responsible for the UN resolutions not being implemented - and I think any fair person will admit that Pakistan must take its share of the blame by not withdrawing its troops. But in any case this question is now academic.

Secondly, whether the UN resolutions continue to be valid. The UN resolutions were obviously framed in view of the then existing conditions. If there has been any tampering with the demography of the Northern areas, then it creates serious problems. Also, there is no way places like Hindu Jammu and Buddhist Ladakh can ever be handed over to an Islamic country.

So, those who are not arguing for the sake of argument will agree that the UN resolutions are not the way to go today.

So then what? I think the dialogue that was begun by Musharraf and Manmohan does show some promise, provided Pakistanis can keep their expectations realistic. Some modus vivendi might be found in the "No change in borders, but make boders irrelevant" approach.

However, India will insist on a symmetry between the Valley and the Northern areas. Also, there is no point in any more interim solutions like the Simla agreement - I don't think India should make any concessions unless Pakistan agrees that the proposed status is the final status.
I disagree with your first argument. Please go through the UN resolutions explained thread. It is quite clear that responsibility overwhelmingly lay with India, and it becomes clear from Nehru's comments (which I posted on that thread today) that India had no intention of implementing the resolutions.

One cannot arbitrarily determine changes that work to ones advantage and refuse to honor international commitments. If the resolutions are invalid due to various reasons, then a process of obtaining resolutions that supersede the original ones should be initiated. Until that happens however, the resolutions are valid and current.
However, more than the exact conditions the resolutions detail, what I find most important in them is the principle of self determination that is to be employed when determining any final solution to Kashmir.

There is merit to the argument of looking at 'parceling' J&K - the argument was originally suggested by Musharraf, and involves maintaining the status quo on all territories but the Kashmir Valley and Azad Kashmir. A referendum could then be held under UN auspices in "Kashmir". The loss to either side in case of a negative decision by the people would therefore be minimal. The 'parceling' option also involves AK and K valley being jointly administered, and being given extensive autonomy.

These are all workable solutions, that take into account the basic principle of the UNSC resolutions. Final status has to be determined through negotiation and compromise, not by Pakistan merely accepting India's illegal demands. Pakistan has offered several concessions by offering solutions that do not involve an implementation of the original UNSC resolutions.
 
What a bloody statement. Where is the bloody proof. You always rant about India not providing proof, err what stops you from providing one. No radio intercepts, no Indian markings in weapons, no eapons residue, no sat intel on training camps. Id say Hippocracy at best. You just cant accepting that it is tanking place in your backyard ...

Actually most of that 'evidence' has appeared in the Pakistani media and was posted in threads that are still up and running - go check them out, and keep your 'bloody' ill manners to yourself.
 
Back
Top Bottom